Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 10, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 claims “wherein the control unit is configured to receive a command signal from an external, and the predetermined condition includes a second predetermined condition that the control unit receives the command signal from the external”. However, examiner does not know what “an external” entails. For prior art examination, as “the external” is configured to receive and send signals, examiner will interpret it as any source configured to send and receive communications from the robot.
Claim 10 claims “wherein the control unit is further configured to execute a specific position specifying process in which the control unit calculates, for each of at least one candidate position that is a candidate for the specific position, a cost for the rebar tying robot to move from the current position to the candidate position …”. However, the claim does not properly establish antecedent basis regarding “a candidate position” earlier within the claim or the claim tree. As “the candidate position” of the claim appears to be the earliest mention of candidate positions, examiner recommends changing the claim to be “… the current position to a candidate position”. For prior art examination, examiner will assume the change recommended.
Claims 15 and 16 both claim “at least one second candidate movement path”. However, examiner notes that within the claim tree that no “first candidate movement path’ has been introduced, conflicting with the “second” candidate movement path. Examiner suggests to amend the claim language to introduce a first candidate movement path within the claim tree or to change its dependency to a claim where the first candidate movement path has been introduced. For prior art examination, examiner will assume a first candidate movement path has been introduced.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US20200147797A1 (George).
Regarding claim 1, George discloses a rebar tying robot configured to perform a rebar tying operation in which the rebar tying robot performs alternately and repeatedly an operation of moving over a plurality of primary rebars and a plurality of secondary rebars intersecting the plurality of primary rebars and an operation of tying the plurality of primary rebars and the plurality of secondary rebars together at points where the plurality of primary rebars and the plurality of secondary rebars intersect, the rebar tying robot comprising:
a rebar tying unit;
[0047] of George, rebar tying tool 116
a conveying unit configured to convey the rebar tying unit; and
See Figs. 2A and 2B of George, where robots 102 have conveying units configured to convey the rebar tying unit, where Fig. 2A has an aerial conveying unit and Fig. 2B has a ground conveying unit.
a control unit configured to control an operation of the conveying unit, wherein the conveying unit comprises:
a longitudinal movement mechanism configured to move the rebar tying robot in a front-rear direction;
a lateral movement mechanism configured to move the rebar tying robot in a left-right direction; and
See Fig. 4 of George, where a plurality of rebar tying locations are located in exemplary view 400. George disclose that the robots can move a plurality of planned paths to move in between ties ([0061]), where the ties are laid out across a grid formed by perpendicular lines forming intersections requiring a longitudinal and lateral movement mechanism.
a positional information detection mechanism configured to detect a current position of the rebar tying robot relative to the plurality of primary rebars and the plurality of secondary rebars,
George discloses a positional information detection mechanism is configured to detect a current position of the rebar tying robot relative to the plurality of primary rebars and the plurality of secondary rebars ([0058, “In some embodiments, both the ground-based robot and the air-based robot 102 uses vision feedback from the sensors to land on the at least one rebar intersection. The ground-based robot and the air-based robot 102 includes an encoder for a position feedback.”).
the control unit is configured to execute a return process in which the control unit drives at least one of the longitudinal movement mechanism and the lateral movement mechanism such that the rebar tying robot moves from the current position of the rebar tying robot detected by the positional information detection mechanism to a specific position without performing the rebar tying operation, and
[0064] of George, “At step 718, the method 700 includes driving off or taking off the rebar automating robot from the first rebar intersection.”. See also Fig. 7 of George.
when a predetermined condition is met during the rebar tying operation, the control unit executes the return process.
[0064] of George, “At step 716, the method 700 includes retracting the rebar tying tool 116 if the first rebar intersection is tied. At step 718, the method 700 includes driving off or taking off the rebar automating robot from the first rebar intersection.”
Regarding claim 3, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the rebar tying robot further comprises:
wherein the control unit is configured to receive a command signal from an external, and the predetermined condition includes a second predetermined condition that the control unit receives the command signal from the external.
See Figs. 4 and 5 of George, where Fig. 4 outlines a base station 402 that manages the robot to complete work in an area ([0061]) and Fig. 5 outlines flagged locations that require further input from a user (second predetermined condition).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200147797A1 (George) in further view of US20190194959A1 (Shima).
Regarding claim 2, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the rebar tying robot further comprises:
wherein the control unit is further configured to execute a continuation possibility determining process in which the control unit determines whether it is possible to continue the rebar tying operation, andWhile George discloses determining whether the rebar is tied (George, [0047]), George does not disclose executing a continuation possibility determining process in which the control unit determines whether it is possible to continue the rebar tying operation. From a similar field of rebar tying, Shima discloses a rebar tying machine comprising a logical flowchart of determining completion of rebar. See Fig. 19 of Shima. The figure shows a configurable flow chart to use thresholds based off torque and twists to determine a completed rebar tie.
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious, prior to the applicant's effective filing date, to combine the system of Shima to the system of George as the determination would allow for a rebar tying robot to reliably complete operations and speed up moving onto the next one.
the predetermined condition includes a first predetermined condition that the control unit determines in the continuation possibility determining process that it is not possible to continue the rebar tying operation.
In light of the rationale of claim 2 above, Shima discloses the torque and rotation numbers as predetermined conditions that the control unit determines in the continuation possibility process to determine if the tying operation can continue.
Claims 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200147797A1 (George).
Regarding claim 4, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the rebar tying robot further comprises:
wherein the specific position includes a position designated by a user.
George discloses that the base station 402 manages robots by designating priorities for the rebar tying robots such as locations for battery swapping and tie refills ([0061]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that a robot 102 that has operations such as battery swapping and tie refills must have specific positions designated by a user to have the operations performed.
Regarding claim 5, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the rebar tying robot further comprises:
wherein the specific position includes a position of a rebar end designated by a user.
See the rationale of claim 4, where the specific position may also be a rebar end designated by a user.
Regarding claim 6, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the rebar tying robot further comprises:
wherein the specific position includes a position of a rebar end where a movement path from the current position is the shortest.
As the routing planning of the mobile robots are manageable by the base station 402, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the shortest movement path for from the current position to the specific position would be a result of routine optimization as finding the shortest path would be an optimum. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 7, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the rebar tying robot further comprises:
wherein the positional information detection mechanism is further configured to detect a tied region and an untied region across the plurality of primary rebars and the plurality of secondary rebars, and
See Fig. 5 of George, where the exemplary view 500 contains tied and untied regions of primary and secondary rebars ([0062]).
the specific position includes a position of a rebar end where a movement path from the current position is the shortest among rebar ends within the tied region.
See the rationale of claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the rebar tying robot further comprises:
wherein the rebar tying robot is further configured to perform alternately and repeatedly
an operation of moving over the plurality of primary rebars and the plurality of secondary rebars in a direction in which the plurality of primary rebars extends and
an operation of tying the plurality of primary rebars and the plurality of secondary rebars together at the points where the plurality of primary rebars and the plurality of secondary rebars intersect in the rebar tying operation, and
See Fig. 5 of George, where a plurality of primary and secondary rebar intersections have been tied together after a robot has reached the intersection area, where robot 102 is configured to move between any intersection to the next, including a direction in which the primary rebars are extended.
the specific position includes a position of a rebar end where a movement path from the current position is the shortest among rebar ends located in the front-rear direction as viewed from the current position.
See the rationale of claim 6.
Regarding claim 9, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the rebar tying robot further comprises:
wherein the rebar tying robot is further configured to perform alternately and repeatedly
an operation of moving over the plurality of primary rebars and the plurality of secondary rebars in a direction in which the plurality of primary rebars extends and
an operation of tying the plurality of primary rebars and the plurality of secondary rebars together at the points where the plurality of primary rebars and the plurality of secondary rebars intersect in the rebar tying operation,
See the citation to claim 8 regarding the direction of the primary rebars.
the positional information detection mechanism is further configured to detect a tied region and an untied region across the plurality of primary rebars and the plurality of secondary rebars, and
See the citation to claim 7 regarding a tied and untied region.
the specific position includes a position of a rebar end where a movement path from the current position is the shortest among rebar ends that are located in the front-rear direction as viewed from the current position and within the tied region.
See the rationale of claim 6.
Claims 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200147797A1 (George) in view of US20070293978A1 (Wurman).
Regarding claim 10, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the rebar tying robot further comprises:
wherein the control unit is further configured to execute a specific position specifying process in which the control unit calculates, for each of at least one candidate position that is a candidate for the specific position,
a cost for the rebar tying robot to move from the current position to the candidate position and specifies the specific position from among the at least one candidate position based on calculated costs of the at least one candidate position, and in the return process, the control unit is configured to drive at least one of the longitudinal movement mechanism and the lateral movement mechanism such that the rebar tying robot moves from the current position to the specific position.
While George does not disclose a calculated cost for the rebar tying robot to move from the current position to the candidate position, from a similar field of endeavor of robot path planning, Wurman discloses a plurality of mobile drive units given tasks to accomplish within a workspace. Specifically, Wurman discloses the use of a cost of each cell, where the cost may represent at least the time expended in driving across the workspace (Wurman, [0209]) and deciding on costs associated with paths as well (Wurman, [0210]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious, prior to the applicant’s effective filing date, to combine the system disclosed by Wurman to the system of George as the cost-based navigation of Wurman quantifies a way of optimizing a path and destination given more constraints are quantified versus only distance, allowing for more considerations to determine best course of action, where the utilized calculated costs of the candidate paths assist in deciding on a specific position to return at
Regarding claim 11, with all of the limitations of claim 10, the rebar tying robot further comprises:
wherein the control unit is configured to specify a candidate position whose cost is the lowest among the at least one candidate position as the specific position.
In light of the rationale of claim 10, see [0210] of Wurman, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the system configured to calculate lowest candidate position costs and choose lowest path costs to choose lowest candidate position costs as choice of the lowest candidate costs would be an optimum found through use and would therefore be a result of routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 12, with all of the limitations of claim 10, the rebar tying robot further comprises:
wherein the control unit is configured to calculate, for each of at least one first candidate movement path that is a candidate for a movement path from the current position to the at least one candidate position, a cost for the rebar tying robot to move from the current position to the candidate position and calculate the costs of the at least one candidate position based on calculated costs of the at least one first candidate movement path.
In light of the rationale of claim 10, see [0210] of Wurman, where Wurman discloses selecting the least costly path 16.
Regarding claim 13, with all of the limitations of claim 12, the rebar tying robot further comprises:
wherein the control unit is configured to calculate a cost of a first candidate movement path whose cost is the lowest among the at least one first candidate movement path as the cost of the candidate position.
See the rationale of claim 10, where the lowest cost path is chosen from a plurality of path costs.
Regarding claim 14, with all of the limitations of claim 10, the rebar tying robot further comprises:
wherein in the specific position specifying process, the at least one candidate position is selected from positions of a plurality of rebar ends.
In view of the rationale of claim 10, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to select candidate positions from positions of a plurality of rebar ends as George deals with primarily choosing rebar ends to tie with mobile robots 102.
Regarding claim 15, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the rebar tying robot further comprises:
wherein the control unit is further configured to execute a specific movement path specifying process in which the control unit calculates, for each of at least one second candidate movement path that is a candidate for a movement path from the current position to the specific position, a cost for the rebar tying robot to move from the current position to the specific position and specifies a specific movement path from among the at least one second candidate movement path based on calculated costs of the at least one second candidate movement path, and
In view of the rationale of claim 12, see [0211] of Wurman, where Wurman discloses that Fig. 16 contains two paths (16p and 16q) are the least costly paths.
in the return process, the control unit is configured to drive at least one of the longitudinal movement mechanism and the lateral movement mechanism such that the rebar tying robot moves from the current position to the specific position along the specific movement path.
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the system of George in view of the system of Wurman would be configured to drive at least one of the movement mechanisms such that the rebar tying robot moves to the specific position along the specific movement path as the path would be calculated to find the optimal way to approach a specific position.
Regarding claim 16, with all of the limitations of claim 15, the rebar tying robot further comprises:
the control unit is configured to specify a second candidate movement path whose cost is the lowest among the at least one second candidate movement path as the specific movement path.
In view of the rationale of claim 15, Wurman discloses a second candidate movement path whose cost is the lowest among the at least one second candidate movement path, where the candidate movement path may be the specific movement path as it is of equal low cost ([0211]).
Regarding claim 17, with all of the limitations of claim 10, the rebar tying robot further comprises:
wherein the positional information detection mechanism is further configured to detect a tied region and an untied region across the plurality of primary rebars and the plurality of secondary rebars, and
See the rationale of claim 7.
the control unit is configured to set a cost for the rebar tying robot to move in the untied region higher than a cost for the rebar tying robot to move in the tied region.
In light of the rationale of claim 10, while Wurman discloses selecting the lowest cost, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try, prior to the applicant’s effective filing date, to set the cost of the untied region higher than a cost for the rebar tying region to move in the tied region as Wurman discloses deciding between a high and low costs, where a lower cost is a more optimal state. Setting the untied region as higher cost would allow for robots to decide on minimizing the costs of the rebar of the specified regions to be lower through tying.
Regarding claim 18, with all of the limitations of claim 10, the rebar tying robot further comprises:
wherein the rebar tying robot is further configured to perform alternately and repeatedly an operation of moving over the plurality of primary rebars and the plurality of secondary rebars in a direction in which the plurality of primary rebars extends and an operation of tying the plurality of primary rebars and the plurality of secondary rebars together at the points where the plurality of primary rebars and the plurality of secondary rebars intersect in the rebar tying operation, and
See the citation to claim 8 regarding the direction of the rebars.
the control unit is configured to set a cost for the rebar tying robot to move in the left-right direction higher than a cost for the rebar tying robot to move in the front-rear direction.
While George does not explicitly disclose setting a cost for the rebar tying to move in the left-right direction higher than a cost for the rebar tying robot to move in the front-rear direction, from a similar field of endeavor, Wurman discloses prioritization and considerations of the environment to select an optimal path by setting costs for each path computed (Wurman, [0048]). Although Wurman does not explicitly set moving in the left-right direction higher than a cost for moving in the front-rear direction, Wurman discloses configurations that disclose having a higher cost for moving in a left-right direction versus a front-rear direction in Figure 1. As seen in the figure, each of the mobile drive units have their own environmental configurations to consider prior to deciding a direction of motion (where the center mobile drive unit 20 is restricted in moving left of the left-right direction versus moving in the front-rear direction under the assumption that it is facing towards or away from the horizontal walls).
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious, prior to the applicant’s effective filing date, to combine the system of Wurman to the system of George as setting a cost of motion is dependent on the environmental considerations that Wurman discloses to have, allowing for a finer tuned motion path planning.
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200147797A1 (George) in view of US20190194959A1 (Shima) and in further view of US20070293978A1 (Wurman).
Regarding claim 19, with all of the limitations of claim 2, the rebar tying robot further comprises:
wherein the control unit is configured to receive a command signal from an external,
the predetermined condition includes a second predetermined condition that the control unit receives the command signal from the external,
See citation of claim 3, where George discloses an external base station in communication with robot 102.
the specific position includes a position designated by a user,
the specific position includes a position of a rebar end designated by a user,
See the citation to claims 4 and 6, where George discloses a user input to dictate a robot path
the specific position includes a position of a rebar end where a movement path from the current position is the shortest,
See the rationale of claim 6.
the positional information detection mechanism is further configured to detect a tied region and an untied region across the plurality of primary rebars and the plurality of secondary rebars,
the specific position includes a position of a rebar end where a movement path from the current position is the shortest among rebar ends within the tied region,
See the citations and rationales of claim 7.
the rebar tying robot is further configured to perform alternately and repeatedly an operation of moving over the plurality of primary rebars and the plurality of secondary rebars in a direction in which the plurality of primary rebars extends and an operation of tying the plurality of primary rebars and the plurality of secondary rebars together at the points where the plurality of primary rebars and the plurality of secondary rebars intersect in the rebar tying operation,
the specific position includes a position of a rebar end where a movement path from the current position is the shortest among rebar ends located in the front-rear direction as viewed from the current position,
See the citations and rationales of claim 8.
the specific position includes a position of a rebar end where a movement path from the current position is the shortest among rebar ends that are located in the front-rear direction as viewed from the current position and within the tied region,
See the citations and rationales of claim 9.
the control unit is further configured to execute a specific position specifying process in which the control unit calculates, for each of at least one candidate position that is a candidate for the specific position, a cost for the rebar tying robot to move from the current position to the candidate position and specifies the specific position from among the at least one candidate position based on calculated costs of the at least one candidate position,
See the rationale of claim 10.
the control unit is configured to specify a candidate position whose cost is the lowest among the at least one candidate position as the specific position,
See the rationale of claim 11.
the control unit is configured to calculate, for each of at least one first candidate movement path that is a candidate for a movement path from the current position to the at least one candidate position, a cost for the rebar tying robot to move from the current position to the candidate position and calculate the costs of the at least one candidate position based on calculated costs of the at least one first candidate movement path,
See the rationale of claim 12.
the control unit is configured to calculate a cost of a first candidate movement path whose cost is the lowest among the at least one first candidate movement path as the cost of the candidate position,
See the rationale of claim 13.
in the specific position specifying process, the at least one candidate position is selected from positions of a plurality of rebar ends,
See the rationale of claim 14.
the control unit is further configured to execute a specific movement path specifying process in which the control unit calculates, for each of at least one second candidate movement path that is a candidate for a movement path from the current position to the specific position, a cost for the rebar tying robot to move from the current position to the specific position and specifies a specific movement path from among the at least one second candidate movement path based on calculated costs of the at least one second candidate movement path,
in the return process, the control unit is configured to drive at least one of the longitudinal movement mechanism and the lateral movement mechanism such that the rebar tying robot moves from the current position to the specific position along the specific movement path,
See the rationale of claim 15.
the control unit is configured to specify a second candidate movement path whose cost is the lowest among the at least one second candidate movement path as the specific movement path,
See the rationale of claim 16.
the control unit is configured to set a cost for the rebar tying robot to move in the untied region higher than a cost for the rebar tying robot to move in the tied region, and
See the rationale of claim 17.
the control unit is configured to set a cost for the rebar tying robot to move in the left-right direction higher than a cost for the rebar tying robot to move in the front-rear direction.
See the rationale of claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAEWOOK JUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-5470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wade Miles can be reached on (571) 270-7777. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights